Site search

Tag: websites

With a scant 10 days left until Christmas, we present item No. 3 on our abbreviated list of gifts only a dog lover could love.

Pupsocks are socks for your feet (not your dog’s) that are emblazoned with a photo of your dog.

They are being offered, at $30 a pair, by an Atlanta company that says a portion of their profits (unspecified) goes to helping animals.

“Our products help you share love for your pet, and behind the scenes we spread that love with others! As such, every pair sold feeds a dog or cat in need. In only six months, we’ve been able to support thousands of meals.”

The company, according to its website, supports Ahimsa House which is dedicated to helping the human and animal victims of domestic violence in Georgia, and the Humane Society of the United States.

To order the socks, you can go to the website, upload a photo of your dog, or cat, or human, and specify the size and color you want.

Of course, there are few things you can’t get your dog’s picture on these days. From coffee mugs to blankets, from tote bags to Christmas tree ornaments, you can find a company to pepper almost any wearable or usable item with your dog’s image.

I had Ace’s photo put on a sweatshirt and a blanket, both of which were gifts to my father, and both of which I got back after my father’s death.

I break out the blanket regularly, and I still wear the Ace sweatshirt — sent to me by the nursing home my dad spent his last days in, complete with his name marked on to the collar.

Socks are about the last thing, clothing-wise, I would think of putting my dog’s photo on.

But rest assured there are plenty of entrepreneurs out there who will keep coming up with ways to make a buck off of our love for dogs, and particularly our love for our own dog.

And more often than not, we will lap it up.

Here are a few more websites that offer to put your pet’s photo on stuff:

If you’re planning to search online to buy a new dog, be warned: Up to 80 percent of the sponsored advertising links that will show up — like that one above for instance — may be fraudulent.

So might that particular photo of a particularly cute puppy, those purebred “papers” that the seller promises to send along, that pastoral setting in which a breeder’s kennel is supposedly located. And the dog being advertised? It might not even exist at all.

The Better Business Bureau last week issued a report warning that online pet sales scams are “victimizing Americans at an alarming rate.”

A growing demand for dogs and an increase in shopping online have combined to give scammers an unprecedented opportunity to promise to sell you a dog, and leave you much poorer and petless.

The BBB advises extreme caution — and never buying a dog from a breeder without visiting that breeder. Don’t let yourself fall in love with a photo and, as with online dating, be careful of getting your heart broken.

Fake pet sales have become so common that the attorneys general of three states — Ohio, Arizona and Virginia — have issued warnings to residents in the past year, the Washington Post reported last week.

The BBB report says many of the suspected fraudulent websites offering dogs are based in the West African nation of Cameroon, and that Cameroonians residing in the U.S. are being used to collect the money from victims through Western Union and MoneyGram outlets.

Several recent cases prosecuted in the United States involve links to Cameroon, including three Pennsylvania university students accused in May of peddling nonexistent boxer puppies online.

The BBB says a high number of victims of online pet marketing schemes are in their late teens or 20s

Such schemes are usually dependent on bogus, often sophisticated, advertisements to hook unsuspecting consumers.

“In the current digital age, it is no surprise that the first step in many people’s search for a new pet begins with the internet. Alas, even the most careful online search is likely to put a consumer in contact with a potential thief. Reports show there are thousands of people around the country, and the world, who have become victims of puppy scams, and many of these typically begin with a fake web site and stolen photos, often taken from a legitimate site,” the report said.

Greedy “sellers” rarely are satisfied with collecting a deposit; most will demand additional payments until the buyer finally becomes suspicious or runs out of funds.

The scammers often hit the prospective “buyers” with additional charges before any dog is even shipped.
While avoiding any in-person meeting with a potential buyer, they ask victims to send money to a supposed third party who will take over responsibility for transporting the animal. In addition to creating phony websites to advertise the animals, the thieves will develop bogus websites that appear to be legitimate transport companies.

Those who pay for pet shipping often are asked to buy or rent a special crate for the pet and requests for special insurance or shots for the animals. At times, the thieves may claim the pet is stuck at an airport in transit and additional money is needed for food and water.

If a customer balks, the fraudsters might inform them that, unless more money is forthcoming, the potential buyer could be charged with “animal abandonment.”

In one typical case a customer named Yahong Zheng of Omaha, Neb., ordered two huskies from the website huskieshaven.com. He forked over $1,200 and was asked for additional money before realizing it might be a scam.

Kanetria Hutcherson found a teacup Yorkie on the website usa.globalfree-classified-ads.com and wired the company a $195 shipping fee to transport the animal. Soon after wiring the $195 fee through MoneyGram, Hutcherson received an email appearing to be from Delta Air Cargo, claiming the animal needed a special crate before it could be put on the plane. She wired an additional $240.

After that she was told the dog had been transported as far as Oklahoma City, and she was instructed to purchase health insurance for the dog at an additional cost of $980. Later she received another email from Delta Air Cargo that asked for another $200; one instructing her to pay $150 for food and water for the animal; and another informing her the dog neeed to be quarantined at a cost of $1,900.

Not until she called the real Delta Air Cargo was she certain she was being duped.

Delta Air Lines last week filed a lawsuit against what it called a “bogus” site that dupes people into believing it provides pet transport services on Delta jets. The site is called DeltaPetTransit.com.

By then she’d paid nearly $1,000 for a dog originally advertised as free. While the dog was said to belong to a family in Baltimore, the same photo, it turns out, was used to advertise a puppy for sale in Florida, Texas, the U.K., New York, and Hungary.

The BBB Study suggests the actual numbers of pet fraud may be even higher than reported, because many victims either choose not to file complaints or do not know where to turn for help. BBB ScamTracker contains 907 reports on this type of fraud, which represents 12.5% of all their complaints involving online purchase fraud.

The Federal Trade Commission in 2015 found 37,000 complaints involving pets, and the vast majority of those are believed to be pet sales scams.

More information about pet sales scammers can be found at the website petscams.com, which tracks scamming reports victims and lists websites that have been linked to scammers.

It is not of 10 bands I saw in concert and one I didn’t. (How quickly that became tiresome.) It’s not my favorite books of all time, or my favorite movies of all time, or my favorite live giraffe births of all time.

It’s a list of the 10 kinds of Facebook posts that bore me, clutter my Facebook feed, and keep me from locating anything interesting I might otherwise find – the kind that, in their repetition, are so annoying that I hereby proclaim they should find a home somewhere else.

Perhaps little auxiliary Facebook-type sites, custom created for such niches, or a system in which, through the miracles of the Internet, all the flotsam, dregs, nauseatingly reappearing games and quizzes and fads could end up, thus making the page I get when I sign on to Facebook something where I’m interested in 25 percent of what might be on there, instead of only about 3.2 percent.

I seem to remember hitting a 60 to 80 percent rate of interest in the content of what we once called newspapers, making them therefore worth my time. Facebook comes nowhere close to that.

Just to sketch out a rough idea of how I’d like things to be, I’d offer these 10 new Facebook type sites — some or all of which might actually exist (I did not check first, for that would lead me to more of what I HATE). The idea, though, is that all the posts that, no offense, fail to interest me sufficiently, annoy me or outrage me, could be diverted to these auxiliary sites, instead of the real Facebook, or at least that version they feed me.

1. Highspeedrecipes.com: Super speeded-up videos showing the preparation of recipes that we use to spend a half hour watching get made on TV, and which take two hours or more to actually make. Now they whir before us on Facebook with only 30 seconds passing from the first cracked egg to the final finished product. Instantly gratifying as they seem, they serve only to remind me of the 29:30 I once wasted on each and every cooking show.

2. Feedmecompliments.com: Where all the posts about your new profile pic, your new hairstyle, your fancy manicure, what you cooked, or what you planted end up – the purpose of which, admit it, is to get compliments on how beautiful you look or it looks. Soon it will be prom dresses. And by all means, go ahead and post those photos and be proud. But, Facebook, please disappear them off my feed.

3. Detailsofmyailment.com: The most intricate details — especially when they come from the pretty much complete stranger kind of Facebook “friend” — of the latest twist and turns your disease, ailment, condition, bruise, depression, phobia has taken. (Your dog’s ailment? Well, I might be interested in that.)

(Interlude: I should point out here that, in some cases, namely those cases of close friends or relatives, I actually do want to be kept up on how you, your dog, your ailment, are doing (though it’s not necessary to show me photos of gashes, stitches, bruises or surgery) As I’ll explain more later, my Facebook friends list consists of relatives, actual real life friends, cherished former co-workers and a few online friends I’ve grown (because Facebook isn’t all bad) to care for and/or become interested in, and lots of people that, no offense, I am less concerned about because, hey, I don’t really know you.)

4. Anyoneknowagoodplumber.com: Again, if it’s a post from someone I know or more specifically someone who lives in the same town as me, I might be interested, or even helpful. Otherwise, if you live in Alma, Kansas, or some such place, I can be of no assistance in your quest for a plumber, or anything else, and your words are cluttering my Facebook. It’s not your fault; it’s Facebook’s.

5. Trumpbeingmildlystupid.com: Sorry, but these have become so commonplace, so recurring, so more than once a day, that I no longer have time for them and would prefer my Facebook page be cleared and kept open for only the most blatant, outrageous and mind-blowing, of Donald J. Trump’s egregious acts and remarks — and preferably those based on accounts provided from legitimate media outlets. Quite possibly, even those in time will become too numerous as well, or maybe they have already.

6. Pinpointmeonamap.com: Unless you are somewhere in need of my immediate assistance, I can see no purpose in receiving a large map pinpointing your current location. If it’s a party and you’re inviting me, or dinner and you’re paying for it, OK. Otherwise, I do not require that knowledge and I definitely do not require a detailed map. But just in case you do, here’s where Frank’s Plumbing is located in Alma, Kansas.

(Interlude: I know what many of you are saying by now. I just need to take better control of the existing parameters available to control the content of my Facebook page, rid myself of those unreal friends, fine tune my profile and do a better job of letting Facebook know my needs and desires. Problem is, I feel they know them too well already, otherwise I wouldn’t be getting those sponsored messages about gout and where to buy whatever product I last Googled. Also tinkering with parameters makes me nervous – and almost as crazy as encountering useless (to me) Facebook posts.

In addition to not properly controlling my Facebook, I did not properly set it up. I created my personal site first – primarily for the purpose of leading to people to posts on my website, ohmidog! Then I added a separate Facebook page for ohmidog!, but I still link to a post every day on my personal Facebook page as well.

Thus my “friends” are a predominantly dog lovers and advocates I don’t really know (though they are generally speaking a good class of people). I still use that personal page to draw attention and link to new ohmidog! posts. Most people don’t go to the link, but prefer to comment based on seeing the picture and headline alone, or ask a question about it, rather than clicking on that blue link that will give them all the answers and details, and countless hours of reading pleasure.

So I use Facebook for two purposes — to stay in touch with friends and to procure the readers necessary to satisfy my ego. (Any profile pic of me isn’t likely to get compliments, so I post what I’ve written, which still sometimes does). In a way, what I’m doing is no different than that person who, proud of their new hairdo, or what they made for dinner, posts pictures of it on Facebook.

I accept almost all friend requests from strangers, as long as their timeline looks like they have an interest in dogs, for that could mean new readers. I reject those from strangers who look suspicious, like say one with a name like Boris “The Hacker” Ivanov, or one who is a scantily clad female who lacks a timeline, has three or four friends and is clearly a temptress lurking on Facebook for evil purposes.

Oh wait, weren’t we doing a list?

7. Myaccomplishment.com: Whether it’s that casserole fresh out of the oven, that marathon you just completed, that award you won or any other achievement of yourself or, often more important, your children, you want to the world to see it. And that’s OK, within reason. But too much of it, stated too smugly, and your venturing very close to item 8.

8. Envymylife.com: A friend going on a cool trip? That’s acceptable. Sure, I’d like to see a few photos. But if you’re constantly going cool places that I can’t go, if I don’t know you from Adam, if you’re living a joyous life of wealth, leisure, fun and adventure, I’m going to get a little pissed – 98 percent because I’m jealous, 2 percent because you are flaunting it too much. I do not need to see every single pastry you enjoyed at every single café you visited during your trip to Paris. Try a little moderation — if not in your life, at least in what you post about that total fulfillment you are achieving.

9. Mywordsinacolorfulbox.com: Putting your words in a colorful box makes me no more likely to read them. I tend to do the opposite and skip them entirely. Those who go to the trouble of putting their words in a colorful box are likely so full of themselves as to leave me uninterested in any substance or knowledge they might be trying to impart. Plain old box-less words are fine. We would include in this category all those all purpose, one-size-fits-all inspirational phrases you’ve stolen from somewhere else, and, often along with them, a photo or depiction of a sunset or a meadow with wispy clouds. I know you mean well. But spare me, please.

10. Sillygameslistsquizzes.com: What possible interest would I have in 10 concerts you saw, and one you didn’t? Nor could I possibly care what “Friends” character, or “Survivor” character, or “Golden Girl” character you most resemble. Take those quizzes if they make you happy. Broadcast the results to friends and strangers alike. I won’t call you mindless sheep. (I can assure you with near certainty, though, that Bea Arthur would never have taken part in such time-wasting frivolity. Rue McClanahan? Oh she definitely would have. Estelle Getty? I’m guessing, she would start them, but get cranky halfway through and give up. Betty White, I’m quite sure, would only take part in them rarely, and in moderation

Conclusion: That’s it. That’s all I ask. Just a few little drainage points through which much of the trite, self-aggrandizing, look-at-me, time-waster posts could exit the stream that becomes my Facebook page.

I’m not asking you, personally, to refrain from anything. I’m just asking Facebook to fix it, or make it a little better, because I know Facebook cares about me (it has told me so) and I know it has all the answers — buried though they may be in the murky, often smothering, depths of its vast wasteland of content.

If you notice ohmidog! has a slightly different look as of today, it’s because I’ve purged the site of advertising.

Except for a brief period when I first fired this website up, eight years ago, advertising has never brought in enough money to cover expenses.

That was the plan, but I never invested much effort in it. And what little effort I did put into it — much like my efforts at “search engine optimization” — was not an enjoyable use of time.

Life is too short to spend it wooing Google.

So, as of today, ohmidog! — while still planning to dazzle you daily, and remain your most trusted source of dog news — takes another step away from being a business, and another step closer to being a hobby.

That said, we are forever grateful to those advertisers that have been with us from the start and helped get us off the ground. We’re hoping the fact that we haven’t charged you for four years makes up for the abrupt break up.

I’ve come to the realization that I’m not a businessman; I’m more of a storyteller. And while the two can mix, I’m not good at mixing them.

Of course, I will still advertise myself (as any self-respecting blogger must) and tout from time to time the words I string together.

Those mentions — and who knows what else — will now move to the right side rail. (The ad for Bark magazine, as I sometimes write for them, falls under that category.)

All those shelters, humane societies, rescue organizations, animal advocates and doggy do-gooders that do what they do for something other than profit are now on the left side rail.

(There’s room for more. If your group would like its logo to appear there, write us at ohmidog@triad.rr.com.)

There is, of course no charge for that and, as promised long ago, there will continue to be no charge to read our daily posts, no registration required, no annoying pop-ups, no hidden links and no advertising disguised as editorial content.

If you’d like to donate to ohmidog’s continuing operation, I won’t stop you. But I won’t twist your arm, either, and I promise we won’t have a week-long fundraising drive — at least not yet.

The video above is pretty cute, but on top of making us chuckle it’s a pretty good example of what’s wrong with the news media these days.

Well, make that at least three things that are wrong with the news media these days.

First, the news organizations that have featured it on their websites in the last week almost all make you watch 30 seconds to a minute of advertising before seeing the 38-second video.

Second, the video was posted on the Internet more than two years ago, which hardly rates as news — even under today’s definition.

Third, and most annoying, almost every single news site that has picked up the old video (from Jukinmedia.com) characterizes the dog’s actions as “revenge.”

That’s anthropomorphic, and just plain wrong.

Clearly, the little girl is poking the resting dog with her feet. Quite possibly, the dog got annoyed and adjusted his position.

But we highly doubt the dog is exacting “revenge” on the girl. True, we can’t read the mind of a dog, either — much less that of a dog in a video — but the far more likely explanation is that the dog is trying to create a cooler and more comfortable spot to rest in.

Jukinmedia.com, when it published the video, described it as showing a dog getting “revenge” on the girl “by throwing sand in her face” and “making her crawl away in fear.”

Apparently, they didn’t watch enough of it to see the little girl laughing about it all.

But what’s far lazier is how, two years later, mostly-reputable news websites such as The Telegraph, ABC News, AOL and the Orlando Sentinel have all featured the video this month under a “dog gets revenge” headline. Of all the news organizations we found carrying the video, only KOMO in Seattle didn’t characterize the dog’s actions as revenge.

Are we nitpicking, or do readers/viewers deserve something better than old, innacurate, repackaged “news” when the only thing new about it is the length of the ad we have to watch before seeing it?

Are we going to accept that, or should we kick a little sand in their faces?

Among many “old school” and unprofitable practices here at ohmidog! is my tendency to treat advertisers like well-trained, perhaps overly-trained, dogs — insisting they stay in their place and don’t dare venture into our editorial columns.

I will let my big old dog in bed with me, and I gladly do so every single night. But when it comes to advertisers, don’t even think about it.

So what’s this T-shirt doing here — in the space that I, way too ethical for my own good, so haughtily reserve for news matter?

For one thing, it’s kind of cool.

For another, with these T-shirts being the biggest ad ever to appear on our pages, I thought it would be a good time to explain this website’s approach to advertising.

(It is not one I recommend to anyone seeking to make money through their website.)

Basically, this middle section of the website is for news, and despite many requests from advertisers to link to their services and products here, I just don’t do it, because it strikes me as sleazy and deceptive.

The rightside column, with all those logos, is for non-profit animal welfare and animal rescue groups, and serves to link the public to their websites. There is no fee for that.

The leftside column, the one clearly marked “advertisements” is for, you guessed it, advertisements.

When ohmidog! started, seven years ago, the hope was that advertising would cover the costs, and maybe even lead to a profit.

That almost worked when we were headquartered in, and focused on, Baltimore.

Then we went and hit the road and ended up living in North Carolina. A few of those local Baltimore ads remain, but I no longer charge those advertisers — partly out of gratitude for helping us get off the ground, partly because fewer Baltimore eyes will see their ads.

Today, most of our ads, including the t-shirt ad at the top, are what are called affiliate ads.

The advertisers pay nothing for them, but if a reader clicks on one of them, and ends up buying something during that visit, the company sends a percentage of their profits my way — generally pennies on the dollar.

So far, those pennies haven’t amounted to much. And as business models go, ohmidog! — even when I wanted it to make money — has always been a prime example of how not to run a website.

We’ve always been all about the content (though I prefer the word “stories), and, while I don’t promise much else, we always will be — without any ads popping up on you, without any links misdirecting you.

What I started out doing for fun and profit, is pretty much becoming just about the fun.

In the months ahead, I’ll qualify for — and plan to start receiving — early social security. So I can only make so much money before having to turn over all the rest to the government.

So, if you must buy a T-shirt, go ahead and click on it, or any of the others now featured in our banner ad.

Go Daddy previewed its Super Bowl ad today, but hours later decided to drop it amid a flood of criticism from dog lovers who said it was tasteless, mean-hearted and irresponsible.

The video of the ad was taken off YouTube, where hundreds of commenters had blasted it, including top officials of animal protection groups.

A back-up ad will be used during the 2015 Super Bowl, the company said.

The ad was intended to poke some fun at Budweiser’s puppy ads — both the highly acclaimed one that aired during last year’s Super Bowl, “Puppy Love,” and a follow-up ad that the beer company will during Sunday’s Super Bowl, called “Lost Dog.”

The 30-second Go Daddy ad featured a retriever puppy finding its way home after falling out of a truck, only to find its owner has used Go Daddy to set up a website that lets her promptly sell the dog to a new owner.

Many in the animal welfare community responded, pointing out that dogs purchased online often come from puppy mills. (For a sampling of their anger, check out hashtag #GoDaddyPuppy, or read the comments left on the YouTube page where the video itself has been deactivated.

The ad was made by Barton F. Graf 9000, but heads of the agency declined to comment.

GoDaddy CEO Blake Irving responded to the ad’s critics on Twitter this afternoon, vowing “we will not air it.”

Earlier in the day, though, Irving had defended the ad, according to AdWeek, saying, “Buddy was purchased from a reputable, loving breeder, just as the ad suggests. Sell or adopt, both need an online presence.”

Around 6:30 p.m., Irving posted a statement confirming the ad won’t run, and that another ad will be substituted.

“You’ll still see us in the Big Game this year, and we hope it makes you laugh,” he wrote.

The YouTube video was removed around the same time.

A petition launched on the website Change.org by animal rights advocate Helena Yurcho demanding the ad be pulled had more than 42,000 signatures by afternoon.

“Essentially, GoDaddy is encouraging private breeding/puppy mills while shelter animals wait patiently for their forever homes or worse—to be euthanized,” she wrote. “They are also encouraging purchasing an animal online; the animal could be sold to someone who runs a fighting ring, someone who abuses animals, or to someone who cannot adequately care for the animal. Animal rights are no laughing matter and to portray them as such is cruel and irresponsible.”

On YouTube, the clip received more than 800 comments, many of them negative. Dog breeders and animal rescuers alike were critical of the spot for sending a negative message.